I wrote back in 2007 how Hollywood was outsourcing legal research, legal analysis, legal opinion and legal contract drafting services to India to lower the high costs of litigation. One of the cases I cited was how the India arm of UK Channel 4’s American counsel was outsourcing to rebut a defamation action against Da Ali G Show. Now those Indian lawyers have won the high-profile libel litigation in Los Angeles.

The lawsuit was filed against Sacha Baron Cohen, Channel 4 Television network, and HBO’s Da Ali G Show. Seems a woman (aka “Jane Doe”) who once knew the comedian claimed that Cohen, while playing the role of “Ali G”, libeled her by name during a spoof interview with historian Gore Vidal by claiming to have had sex with her. I’m told this was the first high profile U.S. media litigation in which the legal research and first drafts of the motion papers for the defense were completed entirely off-shore by Indian attorneys at a legal outsourcing company supervised by New York-based SmithDehn LLP.

Today’s LA Superior Court victory on the Ali G motion threw out the lawsuit. “No reasonable person could consider the statements made by Ali G on the program to be factual. To the contrary, it is obvious that the Ali G character is absurd, and all his statements are gibberish and intended as comedy… Altogether, the program is obviously a spoof of a serious interview program. No reasonable person could think otherwise.”

As one of the defense lawyers noted: “As so often happens in cases like this, the ‘chilling effect’ of the threat of substantial damages and significant legal costs, forces defendants to settle with plaintiffs who have no justifiable claim. However combining the skills and expertise of U.S. attorneys with U.S. law-trained Indian attorneys has proved to be an innovative and cost-effective way to fight and win the suit.”

12 Comments

Clara • on Apr 21, 2009 6:47 pm

“Dey tuk urrrrrr Jooooobs!”

Legal research is what it is, you just need a highly intelligent and motivated individual to draw the case map. However I doubt we will ever have Lawyer shortage like Doctors or Engineers so the American Bar is safe. You can BS your way through Law school which will keep litigators coming down the pike regularly.

M • on Apr 21, 2009 6:47 pm

I’m really disappointed to see you sounding so gung ho about legal outsourcing, Nikki. Legal outsourcing may save some money during litigation but it is absolutely killing the legal profession. The perception of lawyers by the general public is completely wrong. Most don’t make great money or work for huge firms. There are thousands of lawyers out there who work as contract attorneys reviewing documents in crowded rooms getting paid by the hour with crappy or no benefits in order to make ends meet. Legal outsourcing is putting these people, many of whom are up to their eyeballs in school debt, out of jobs. Considering the way you’ve backed the writers and actors (two other groups where the public perception of them as pampered and overpaid doesn’t reflect the realities of the average joes) during their recent negotiations it’s disappointing to see you taking the side of the scummy big shots who are trying to save a few bucks by putting the lowest lawyers on the totem pole out of a job.

The lawyers at the SmithDehn firm and its Indian co-counsel deserve congratulations for their victory.
That said, the notion that this was a “landmark decision” and “only the second of its kind in the U.S.” is pure PR puffery. I haven’t seen the entire Superior Court decision, but, based on the portion quoted here (and here: http://reporter.blogs.com/thresq/2009/04/ali-g-girlfriend-joke.html), this was a routine application of California defamation law, which has long provided that a statement cannot form the basis of a defamation claim if “no listener could reasonably have interpreted [it] to be a statement of actual fact.” See Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting: http://www.law.com/regionals/ca/opinions/apr/a094062.shtml.

With respect to the defense lawyer quoted as saying, “so often…in cases like this, the ‘chilling effect’ of the threat of substantial damages and significant legal costs, forces defendants to settle with plaintiffs who have no justifiable claim,” that claim doesn’t hold much water. Compared to many other kinds of cases, defamation cases are actually relatively *inexpensive* to litigate, because they can often be resolved short of trial, thanks to California’s anti-SLAPP statute and the availability of strong First Amendment defenses. I’m a former in-house litigator at NBC, where we routinely fought (and won) such cases entirely or primarily in-house (thus minimizing outside counsel fees). Here’s an example of such a case, where the issues (and cases on which we relied) were very similar to this Ali G case, and which we won on our anti-SLAPP motion: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14517553/Drake-v-Leno-antiSLAPP-motion.

Unreasonable • on Apr 21, 2009 6:47 pm

Ummm, wasn’t that how the Ali G. show worked… that every single person on it mistook him for a real interviewer making factual statements? Somebody blew this one.

Nonplussed • on Apr 21, 2009 6:47 pm

We’re outsourcing pedantry now?
One day we are all going to wake up and find we’re sewing trainers for a living…

Scuttlebutt • on Apr 21, 2009 6:47 pm

When an Indian firm finally drops a ball for a Hollywood client (and that can and will happen because people in India practicing are no more infallible than people in the USA practicing law) let me know how the malpractice action & the disciplinary proceedings go. At least when you use US lawyers, you have some idea of how the US state ethics committees work, of the fact that there are malpractice insurers here etc.

How does that all work in India, you know when the screwup’s in Mumbai & not in LA? Can you even sue the responsible parties or recover on someone’s malpractice insurance policy or take away a license (or more)? Or will you just be SOL?

There is such a thing as being too cheap. And I sure hope that the end clients got the benefit of the discounted rates for Indian legal work and the savings didn’t just go to the shysters.

By the way because there are so many lawyers in the USA does it ever occur to clients to bargain harder for their services at a lower price? You just might get a deal cause times is tough(er) for all the legal eagles now too.

Buddy Bing • on Apr 21, 2009 6:47 pm

I’m sure that the outsourcing of legal gruntwork will do for the law profession what it has already done to assure customer satisfaction, accuracy, privacy, and understandability in the computer, banking, product support, and other service professions.

Kenny • on Apr 21, 2009 6:47 pm

As an engineer, I’m 100% against the myth of there being an engineering shortage that lead to outsourcing. The truth is it’s always been cheaper to send work overseas than it has been to hire young engineers in the States. Anyone who thinks there’s a shortage of any profession leading to off-shore work simply hasn’t had their job outsourced yet. When it happens to you, you’ll understand.

As for lawyers, I went to law school when I was having difficulty finding a job after coming out of engineering school and I had my eyes opened to how horrible the shape of the law job market is. My heart goes out to young lawyers who can’t find jobs because the work is being outsourced. I mean, I always had my programming and math skills to fall back on, but for most young lawyers, they don’t really have any skills yet to allow them to be self-sufficient.

But like I said, I think this myth that there’s a shortage leading to job outsourcing will end once it affects everyone.

peggy • on Apr 21, 2009 6:47 pm

Taking this to its logical conclusion, the only jobs left for Americans will be…plumbing? Nope, illegal aliens already do that. Um…burger flipping? No, illegals do that already…Medical Doctor? Well, no…been to the hospital lately? I’m stumped. Can someone tell me what jobs will be left for Americans to do in the next 20 years? Isn’t this how the Roman Empire fell?

Alboone • on Apr 21, 2009 6:47 pm

Right on the money M. Could not agree with you more. Most lawyers and paralegals, believe it or not, get paid crumbs for sifting and analyzing legalese nonsense. These are the people getting the shaft and its unfair dammit!! Our perception of the slick attorney has only been amplified by TV and movies, but thats fantasy. Most of these people can hardly pay their utility bills. Shame on you Finke for supporting this form of outsourcing, no wonder this country is in the toilet, we’re not doing anything to build our base here. Look I’m not against India, this is a Global community I get it, but still its pretty absurd we have to outsource our legal industry abroad in the name of reducing costs. What’s next? I have no idea where we are headed as a nation. I am genuinely petrified folks!

DH • on Apr 21, 2009 6:47 pm

Let’s be clear the reason junior lawyers and paralegals get paid crumbs is not remotely because of outsourcing, it’s because the partners have their snouts in the trough.

This is perfectly obvious by looking at the difference between what they are charged out for and what they themselves receive.

Direct your anger at the partners who have worked out they can line their own pockets even more by employing Indian paralegals.

your job • on Apr 21, 2009 6:47 pm

I’m sure someone here has read “The World is Flat” by Thomas Friedman. Get used to it, the world’s job market has become “borderless”. You will compete with others not only in this country but other countries, like India as well. And likewise, you too can replace someone elses job from another country. Should they ever require whining and bitching, we will finally get the job we are most competitive at doing.